Sheila Gaff vs.
Sara McMann
Two full careers, measured against each man's own division and against each other — the tape, the read, and every number behind them.
The men, measured.
Frame, age, layoff and recent form — green marks the edge on each line.
What the numbers say.
Scouting notes, auto-generated — only stats deviating more than 25% from the division median make this list. No narratives, just deviations.
Who did they actually beat?
Full-career records re-graded by the tier of opposition — the same grading the Contender Series pick model uses. Records built on tier-4 competition are worth less than records built on killers.
Sheila Gaff
Full career not yet synced for Sheila Gaff — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 0-0 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record +0.0 wins over .500
Sara McMann
Full career not yet synced for Sara McMann — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 3-5 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record +1.3 wins over .500
The stand-up battle.
Career totals; norms are the medians of each man's own division.
Significant strikes — landed & absorbed
Where the fight happens (share of sig. strike attempts)
Sheila Gaff
Distance 45.0% (norm 80.3%) · Clinch 55.0% (norm 9.7%) · Ground 0.0% (norm 7.5%)
Sara McMann
Distance 59.5% (norm 80.3%) · Clinch 11.5% (norm 9.7%) · Ground 29.0% (norm 7.5%)
What they throw (share of sig. strike attempts by target)
Sheila Gaff
Head 40.0% (norm 75.2%) · Body 55.0% (norm 14.3%) · Legs 5.0% (norm 8.8%)
Sara McMann
Head 78.4% (norm 75.2%) · Body 16.0% (norm 14.3%) · Legs 5.7% (norm 8.8%)
Zone accuracy matrix Landed / attempted by zone
Green ≥ division median, red below. UFCStats tracks position and target as separate splits.
| Zone | Gaff L/A | Acc | Women's Bantamweight med | McMann L/A | Acc | Women's Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 2 / 9 | too few to rate | 38.3% | 90 / 347 | 25.9% | 38.3% |
| In the clinch | 8 / 11 | too few to rate | 73.3% | 55 / 67 | 82.1% | 73.3% |
| On the ground | 0 / 0 | too few to rate | 70.8% | 114 / 169 | 67.5% | 70.8% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 2 / 8 | too few to rate | 37.7% | 166 / 457 | 36.3% | 37.7% |
| To the body | 8 / 11 | too few to rate | 70.0% | 67 / 93 | 72.0% | 70.0% |
| To the legs | 0 / 1 | too few to rate | 80.9% | 26 / 33 | 78.8% | 80.9% |
Zones with fewer than 25 attempts are marked "too few to rate". Each fighter is measured against the median of leaderboard-eligible fighters in his own division (Women's Bantamweight: 40 fighters · Women's Bantamweight: 40 fighters).
What lands on them Opponents' accuracy against each man
Green ≤ division median — harder to hit than the typical man in his division.
| Zone | vs Gaff L/A | Opp acc | Women's Bantamweight med | vs McMann L/A | Opp acc | Women's Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 2 / 5 | too few to rate | 41.3% | 109 / 282 | 38.7% | 41.3% |
| In the clinch | 0 / 0 | too few to rate | 74.7% | 55 / 65 | 84.6% | 74.7% |
| On the ground | 16 / 20 | too few to rate | 74.2% | 91 / 109 | 83.5% | 74.2% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 16 / 22 | too few to rate | 38.1% | 193 / 384 | 50.3% | 38.1% |
| To the body | 2 / 3 | too few to rate | 73.2% | 43 / 52 | 82.7% | 73.2% |
| To the legs | 0 / 0 | too few to rate | 80.9% | 19 / 20 | too few to rate | 80.9% |
The ground war.
Takedowns, control and submissions — career totals with each man's per-minute rates against his division norm.
Bars compare the two men's rates (per-minute / per-15 figures), not raw totals — McMann has more cage time on record.